Sunday, 9 July 2017

Tan Cheng Bok's Presidential Challenge.

I understand now why Tan Cheng
Bok failed to persuade the HC Judge in his challenge to the timing of the
reserved presidential election.

The HC
Judge has made it clear that "Parliament has the right to decide the
timing of such elections...when a racial group has not been represented in the
presidency for five continuous term."

It is ultimately a "policy decision”,
which falls outside the remit of the court".

And the spirit of this policy decision is
eminently understandable and defensible - that is, it is to preserve and
protect the hard-fought harmony of our multiracial society, keeping the peace
amongst the different racial and religious groups, and upholding its meaningful
and respectful integration and community.

We should therefore never take our peace
for granted. And if the other racially fractured states in the world is any
indication, where the animosity worsens by the day because of seditious,
opportunistic and exploitative elements in the population, it is without doubt
better to be safe than sorry, that is, to take preventive measures to protect
our peace even if such measures may seem to be contrived, convenient or
paternalistic.

But the fight in court has spilled over
into the exchange of words in the public arena. Some news reports (which our Straits
Times had prudently refused to publish) has repeated what DAG had said in court
about TCB.

Such reports have to do with DAG's
extrajudicial, informal jabs at TCB. The former basically accused TCB of being
"self-serving" in the hope of wanting to stand as a candidate in the
coming presidential election.

And he also questioned TCB's motives as
"purely selfish" and showing "no regard for the principle of
multiracial representation which Parliament intended to safeguard."

DAG had made other remarks, but it is not
necessary to repeat it here.

Lesson? Just one.

Now let's be clear that the AGC did not ask
for cost for defeating the application, and regardless of the reason behind it,
that is in itself an honourable gesture.

Yet, the allegations made against TCB are
in my view wholly unnecessary and unfounded, and TCB has already come forward
in his latest FB post to defend his honour and to rebut them.

In any event, didn't the HC Judge rule that
TCB "had standing to bring the challenge to court" and he has
satisfied all its requirements to make this application?

Alas, in a society governed by the rule of
law, led by a properly constituted and elected parliamentary mix, and premised
on the constitutional principles that allow her citizens to pursue justice,
fairness and equality within proper forum and jurisdiction, and in the spirit
of goodwill, mutual respect and honour, I believe TCB has every right to make
this application to clear the air, deepen the understanding and hopefully bring
the issue to some form of finality (appeal notwithstanding).

And the HC Judge's decision in favour of
the AGC has done just that. As a result, all Singaporeans, who keep an open
mind and balance a wider perspective of things, have positively benefited from
it.

In the end, it is about parliamentary
sovereignty, and it is surely not a case of the abuse of such privilege
because, in the larger scheme of things, the stake of our generation and our
children's generation are subject to grave peril if we should let our guard down
even for a moment thinking that we ought to be libertarianistic about it and
let a few liberties slip through.

So, coming back full circle, my point is to
keep the arguments on the issue and not the person.

TCB has served the people well, and he is
well loved by all who know and read about his political devotion. He lived his
political life not for convenience, but based on trust, sacrifices and
commitment.

If he is "purely selfish" and has
"no regard for the principle of multiracial representation which
Parliament intended to safeguard," he should have just minded his own
little medical practice in Jurong, sent his kids to ivory-league schools in the
country and retired in peace while playing some golf in some exclusive clubs to
fill his time.

Further, if he is "self-serving",
then he should just have stayed away from politics altogether and taken
vacations from one exotic place to another, instead of spending most of his
adult life being the MP (for 26 years), being the first non-Cabinet minister
elected into PAP Central Executive Committee, being Chairman of countless of
committees dealing with bread-and-butter issues such as education, national
development and environment, and even having the time to be a part-time
clinical teacher in general practice at NUS.

I always believe that if we do not know the
man (or our opponent) well enough, or understand fully why he did what he did,
we should at least give due credit for what he has done for the country, that
is, his tireless years of service, even running for the elected President and
losing just marginally to TT.

Alas, who is to say that he would not have
been the People's President like Ong Teng Cheong whom the majority can identify
with, and be able to inspire deeply?

So, the allegations against his character
are really uncalled for.

In my view, you are practically throwing
his decades of sacrifice for public office into the drain just because he cared
enough, whether for personal and/or public duty, to step forward and be counted
(that should at least count for selfless courage rather than self-serving
motive).

And it is also unnecessary because you
don't need to implicate or conflate his motive together with the object of his
application to persuade the Court of what is, from the start, the Parliamentary
intention for the amendments to the Elected Presidency to include a reserved
election.

In other words, throwing his character into
the ring does not in any way advance your goal of putting forward the policy
objectives of the legislature whose aim is and has always been to protect and
preserve the racial and religious harmony of the nation.

Alas, it
would be a sad day for Singapore if, in an attempt to make a point in a
properly constituted forum, our respected government body feels it has this
moralistic need to dress it up with personal attacks that only create
unnecessary hurts and disappointments, instead of just sticking to the issues
and winning it with humility, honour and mutual respect. Cheerz.